DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the term “the plasmarized gas” lacks antecedent basis. This term is recited in claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1,6-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapity (2020/0328078) in combination with Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159).
Tapity (2020/0328078) teaches a method and processing system for integrated in-situ dry surface preparation and area selective film deposition. The methods includes providing a substrate having a first film and a second film, the first and second films containing different materials and performing steps of a) treating the substrate to remove residue from the first and second films, b) exposing the substrate to oxygen containing gas to functionalize a surface of the film, c) exposing the substrate to a reactant gas (organic compound gas) that selectively forms a blocking layer (claimed SAM) on the first or second film and d) forming a film on the first or second film whichever does not contain the blocking layer (claimed target film). The steps a)-d) being performed without exposing the substrate to air during or between the steps which would meet the claimed forming the SAM layer by exposing with an organic compound gas (SAM) and the oxygen gas as the claims do not require the exposure of oxygen and SAM gases be done in a single chamber or at the same time but just be supplied of which they are (abstract and [0004]).
Tapity (2020/0328078) fails to teach the oxygen gas does not contain an OH group.
Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) teaches a similar method of forming a directed self-assembled layer on a substrate and annealing in a controlled gas environment comprising an oxygen element with a partial pressure of 10-2000 Pa (abstract and [0010]). Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) teaches the oxygen element include O2, H2O and N2O in which O2 and N2O do not contain an OH group [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tapity (2020/0328078) to utilize as the oxygen gas an element not having OH groups (N2O and O2) as evidenced by Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) with the expectation of functionalizing the surface of the first film.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) teaches the oxygen element include O2, H2O and N2O in which O2 and N2O do not contain an OH group [0025].
Regarding claim 7, Tapity (2020/0328078) teaches the organic compound or SAM layer to include a thiol-based compound [0018]-[0019].
Regarding claim 9, Tapity (2020/0328078) teaches in step d) forming a film on the first or second film whichever does not contain the blocking layer (claimed target film) (abstract and [0021]).
Regarding claim 15, Tapity (2020/0328078) teaches the first film to be a dielectric and a second film to be metal ([0014] and claims 3-6).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapity (2020/0328078) in combination with Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) further in combination with Azumo et al. (2021/0087691).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Tapity (2020/0328078) in combination with Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) are incorporated here.
Tapity (2020/0328078) in combination with Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) fail to teach forming an oxide film by oxidizing the surface of the second film (metal film) before the forming of the self-assembled monolayer.
Azumo et al. (2021/0087691) teaches a film forming method where a substrate including a layer of a first material and a layer of a second material have different materials including a dielectric and a metal whereby forming an oxide film on the metal is performed prior to forming a SAM layer and an object film thereafter (abstract, Fig. 1 (steps S103 and S104) and [0036]-[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tapity (2020/0328078) in combination with Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) process to include forming oxide film prior to forming SAM layer as evidenced by Azumo et al. (2021/0087691) as the SAM layer is easily absorbed onto the metal oxide film versus the dielectric film to improve selectivity of the SAM layer [0043]-[0044].
Regarding claim 2, Azumo et al. (2021/0087691) teaches forming the oxide film and the SAM layer (Figs. 2C and 2D).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Tapity (2020/0328078) teaches a method and processing system for integrated in-situ dry surface preparation and area selective film deposition and a) treating the substrate to remove residue from the first and second films and using a cleaning gas including nitrogen and hydrogen [0015].
Regarding claim 5, Tapity (2020/0328078) teaches the first film to be a dielectric and a second film to be metal ([0014] and claims 3-6) as well as Azumo et al. (2021/0087691) teaching a dielectric and conductive layer on the substrate [0024].
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapity (2020/0328078) in combination with Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) further in combination with WO-2022/070909.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Tapity (2020/0328078) in combination with Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) are incorporated here.
Tapity (2020/0328078) in combination with Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) fail to teach etching a portion of the target film that protrudes laterally beyond the first film after forming the target film.
WO-2022/070909 teaches film deposition method and device whereby a substate having a first and second film thereof of differing materials whereby a SAM blocking layer is deposited on one of the films for forming selective deposition on the other film to form a target film (18). WO-2022/070909 teaches this formation of the target film (180 is not perfect and therefore a subsequent etching is performed to remove target film material which protrudes laterally from the film region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tapity (2020/0328078) in combination with Knaepen et al. (2019/0155159) process to include a post-treatment step of etching to remove unwanted deposition on areas protruding laterally outside the film area as evidenced by WO-2022/070909 with the expectation of forming target film in the desired area and not outside that area.
Regarding claim 11 and 12, WO-2022/070909 teaches using as the etching gas H2O (pg. 8) and Tapity (2020/0328078) teaches the SAM organic compound gas to include fluorine [0018].
Regarding claim 13, the claimed repeating the steps of forming the SAM, target film and etching are repeated although not explicitly taught, would be at least suggested as the prior art teaches forming these layers consecutively to produce selective coatings and to repeat as such to form subsequent layers would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art. Furthermore, it is well settled that the mere duplication of parts/steps has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights